cannon fodder characters

[sashamerideth]

I have just managed to accidentally delete a chapter where I introduced a purposefully unlikeable character, just so he can be killed by my baddie a few paragraphs later, after getting the nod from my neutral character. I think the approval is needed as it is character building and it needs to happen for later events. I already have a high body count, with seven unnamed dead before the end of chapter 1.

I don't think one chapter is long enough to develop a vested interest in a character, but I want to avoid the unlikeable guy gets killed trope. I don't think I can postpone this character death, all I can do is introduce him earlier and try to build some rapport with my main characters, but should I?

 

[Reaver]

If he's not even what you would call a "secondary" or even "tertiary" character...I say kill him off. Then again, you could go a different route by sticking him with your main characters for a chapter or three..create some extra conflict in their storyline...

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

If the guy isn't likeable, then when the bad guy kills him, the reader will probably find that they like the bad guy more for removing the guy they don't like.

The real question is, how is this supposed to be effect the reader? Do you want the bad guy to seem less bad? Is it just another corpse along the road? If you are going to spend time developing a character the reader won't like...will the death do as you intend?

 

[TWErvin2]

You can write the fellow in with unlikeable traits, but is it really worth the investment to create an unlikeable character to bump off the next chapter. Others indicated, it does depend some on the reason for the killing (why--how it moves the plot forward or is a significant characterization event).

You could just as easily use a 'spear carrier' or a 'stock character' to fill the part, and not go through the acrobatics of creating a memorable or likeable or unlikeable character, unless it's necessary. But as you'd indicated in the title of this thread (cannon fodder), the characters are not significant, other than he/she/they appear to be eliminated.

 

[ThinkerX]

Kill the 'cannon fodder' character off...but give him a brother, son, or spouse who turns up later on, trying to investigate/avenge said relatives death. This relative is the one who will give the grieving speech, (mis)identify the villian, and turn up at the wrong place at the wrong time a few chapters down the road.

 

[sashamerideth]

The killing happens quite early on, while I am establishing basic character traits, sort of showing what people are doing to survive, abusing the authority they have, etc.

Should I rewrite it and put it up in the showcase for opinions? It isn't strictly fantasy, yet. That happens later in the story.

 

[sashamerideth]

If the guy isn't likeable, then when the bad guy kills him, the reader will probably find that they like the bad guy more for removing the guy they don't like.

The real question is, how is this supposed to be effect the reader? Do you want the bad guy to seem less bad? Is it just another corpse along the road? If you are going to spend time developing a character the reader won't like...will the death do as you intend?

I don't want to have an unlikeable bad guy, but he is cruel and manipulative. He runs a futuristic concentration camp, has his own motivations, his wife is in the concentration camp, he put her there and he wants to get her out.

The character that makes the call is my goodies mentor, and he is a neutral character. He cares about my main character, and wants to protect him. Later, he will use my main character, and others that will die, to go after my main baddie.

A while ago, I was given the idea of an old wizard that sends young adventurers on pointless and impossible quests, just for the entertainment of watching them fail. My neutral character has some of this in him. He is highly intelligent and has trouble entertaining himself in the low tech world I am throwing him in, so this is entertainment for him.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Entertainment. Hmmm. As a reader, I would say I would feel a bit cheated if the entire plot resolved out to someone being bored. I'm not saying it is unbelievable, just that after however many hundreds of pages the end results is the main character was pushed through the story for no real reason other than someone is bored. That would probably make me less than happy with you as an author. It would have to be a really incredible story to keep me from adding you to the never again list.

The problem is, that the true villain in this type of story is the one who is bored getting people killed for his own entertainment. Now if he is killed in some nasty way at the end, then that would be a form of acceptable resolution.

 

[sashamerideth]

Hmm, what if you, as the reader knew that he was bored, and the book had a more satirical, humorous tone to it?

 

[Telcontar]

My knee jerk reaction is to say "Never create cannon fodder characters." Such characters are flat, and they detract from the value of the stories they appear in. Instead, create a real character - so what if he has to die? Even a character designed to be unlikeable to many readers will be endearing to some.

Darkstorm brought up a good point: Consider how this death is intended to affect the reader. If the unlikeable guy is killed off by the bad guy, it could make one or the other of them seem more likeable. Maybe's it is supposed to raise the point that even a mildly unpleasant person isn't all that bad compared to a murderer. Or maybe it's the other way, and the characters can cheer on the 'bad guy' for removing this asshole from the book. Killing a flat character, however, accomplishes neither, and nothing.

 

[sashamerideth]

My knee jerk reaction is to say "Never create cannon fodder characters." Such characters are flat, and they detract from the value of the stories they appear in. Instead, create a real character - so what if he has to die? Even a character designed to be unlikeable to many readers will be endearing to some.

Maybe he is more real than I indicated. The character is a blue blood, self absorbed, and thinks that his station in life should override his dna. It is this attitude that gets him killed rather than merely left to rot.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Hmm, what if you, as the reader knew that he was bored, and the book had a more satirical, humorous tone to it?

Maybe, but when someone invests many hours into a novel, they have to feel the time was worth it. "Because he was bored" is right up there with "the bad guy does it because he is evil." Neither one are a satisfying reason. It could be I'm just not the audience you are writing for. I love humorous books, and if you can pull off something like the stainless steel rat, or myth type stories, then maybe. I still say if I follow someone through a novel and found out there was no real reason for any of it to happen...I wouldn't be satisfied. To be honest, one of the SSR books was one of those where at the end, the entire book ended up a paradox that meant nothing that had happened had any effect on anything. While it was somewhat fun to read, I did feel it rather lame. TV shows doe that kind of crap all the time, probably why I'm less accepting of it in a book. If I want pointless entertainment, there is loads of it on tv.

Don't let me dissuade you from writing your story. But novels are a lot of work, and time, and if the core reason for it is disappointing to the reader, that could be a lot of wasted effort.

 

[SeverinR]

Redshirt! The unknown member of the landing party.

I agree if the guy is not likeable the reader won't feel sorry for him, and might like the killer even better.
But it will seem to be a no body walking corpse waiting to be dropped.
Cliches happen, it is our job to make them more interesting then a standard cliche.